Don't Judge People By Color (Atlanta: school, university, centers)

[chuckshere]

Originally Posted by Tarzanman

First-hand and experience plus raw data trump academic studies from the perspective of cold, hard facts.

So, if someone observed that the sun rises in the east and seems to travel across the sky, that trumps any analysis by Copernicus?

[Tarzanman]

Originally Posted by chuckshere

So, if someone observed that the sun rises in the east and seems to travel across the sky, that trumps any analysis by Copernicus?

Do you remember what I said about your critical thinking skills? Perhaps you should re-read the definition of factual:

fac·tu·al: ˈfak(t)SH(əw)əl/: adjective; concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations of or reactions to it.

Now apply that definition to your scenario and you should be able to answer your own question

[chuckshere]

Originally Posted by Tarzanman

Do you remember what I said about your critical thinking skills? Perhaps you should re-read the definition of factual:

fac·tu·al: ˈfak(t)SH(əw)əl/: adjective; concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations of or reactions to it.

Now apply that definition to your scenario and you should be able to answer your own question

The generally accepted method we use to determine what is "actually the case" is peer-reviewed science. Cite another study that refutes the one from Brown University and then we are discussing facts. Otherwise you're just making assertions based on your personal observations

[Tarzanman]

Originally Posted by chuckshere

The generally accepted method we use to determine what is "actually the case" is peer-reviewed science. Cite another study that refutes the one from Brown University and then we are discussing facts. Otherwise you're just making assertions based on your personal observations

Assertions based on personal observations are the bedrock of the scientific process. You should already know this, so your ultimate statement seems strange.

Nothing against Brown University or their study, but you *clearly* don't understand the lens that the study is filtering the data through. Lets take a gander (From http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/.../report2.pdf):

Pay special attention to page 24 where they say that their typical geographic area of analysis has 3000-5000 people.

The decennial census provides information on segregation at the level of census tracts, areas
that typically have 3000-5000 residents. We report segregation for metropolitan regions
beginning in 1980, using exactly the same geographic boundaries in each year

This methodology will skew higher 'segregation' results for an area with NYC's population density (26,403 people /sq.mile) where 3000 people is probably one or two blocks worth of houses; and skew much lower for an area like Atlanta (3,154 people /sq mile) where 3000-5000 people is probably a dozen different subdivisions.

This difference wouldn't be immediately obvious to a joe schmoe who isn't versed in anthropology or doesn't have first hand experience living in both dense urban and suburban environments like the NYC and Atlanta metro areas, respectively.

Perhaps exercising even a modicum of due diligence when referencing academic studies you obviously haven't read might help you perceive the gaping holes in your logic and suppositions when discussing topics you only have a passing familiarity with.

This is all academic, because the exact data they study uses is visually represented on the racial dot map.... but seriously, a 10 year old who has lived in both of these cities could have told you the same thing that I did without ever having seen any of the data.

I eagerly await your forthcoming ill-advised, and inevitably humorous reply.

[mjtinmemphis]

I've never bought the idea that places like Atlanta and Charlotte where more segregated than Chicago and New York City.

You can ride the blue line CTA train in Chicago and notice a dramatic demographic shift at Jackson could tell the story.

I strongly prefer cities that are more integrated. There seems to be less overt racism when Blacks and Whites are using the same trains, movie theaters and bars and night clubs.

[chuckshere]

Originally Posted by Tarzanman

Assertions based on personal observations are the bedrock of the scientific process. You should already know this, so your ultimate statement seems strange.

Nothing against Brown University or their study, but you *clearly* don't understand the lens that the study is filtering the data through. Lets take a gander (From http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/.../report2.pdf):

Pay special attention to page 24 where they say that their typical geographic area of analysis has 3000-5000 people.



This methodology will skew higher 'segregation' results for an area with NYC's population density (26,403 people /sq.mile) where 3000 people is probably one or two blocks worth of houses; and skew much lower for an area like Atlanta (3,154 people /sq mile) where 3000-5000 people is probably a dozen different subdivisions.

This difference wouldn't be immediately obvious to a joe schmoe who isn't versed in anthropology or doesn't have first hand experience living in both dense urban and suburban environments like the NYC and Atlanta metro areas, respectively.

Perhaps exercising even a modicum of due diligence when referencing academic studies you obviously haven't read might help you perceive the gaping holes in your logic and suppositions when discussing topics you only have a passing familiarity with.

This is all academic, because the exact data they study uses is visually represented on the racial dot map.... but seriously, a 10 year old who has lived in both of these cities could have told you the same thing that I did without ever having seen any of the data.

I eagerly await your forthcoming ill-advised, and inevitably humorous reply.

The first humorous remark I'll make is that your link to the Brown study doesn't work. Here is the correct link: http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Report/report2.pdf

And you might find this amusing. Here's an article discussing a link to another report from UCLA.
The Nation's Most Segregated Schools Aren't Where You'd Think They'd Be
Is their methodology wrong, too?

Here's a University of Michigan study for your amusement. Click on the link for the Excel download.
Segregation Scores: Census 2010
In this report, New York comes in number 2 as most segregated and Atlanta is way down at 41.

Is this enough due diligence for you or do you need to see more?

[Tarzanman]

Originally Posted by chuckshere

The first humorous remark I'll make is that your link to the Brown study doesn't work. Here is the correct link: http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Report/report2.pdf

And you might find this amusing. Here's an article discussing a link to another report from UCLA.
The Nation's Most Segregated Schools Aren't Where You'd Think They'd Be
Is their methodology wrong, too?

Here's a University of Michigan study for your amusement. Click on the link for the Excel download.
Segregation Scores: Census 2010
In this report, New York comes in number 2 as most segregated and Atlanta is way down at 41.

Is this enough due diligence for you or do you need to see more?

None of the links you provided are to the studies themselves, and none have links to the actual papers or abstracts, so I can't comment on their methodology in good faith. The first one is a Huffington Post article. Is that what the current level of discourse has fallen to? News blogs?

[chuckshere]

Originally Posted by Tarzanman

None of the links you provided are to the studies themselves, and none have links to the actual papers or abstracts, so I can't comment on their methodology in good faith. The first one is a Huffington Post article. Is that what the current level of discourse has fallen to? News blogs?

You haven't cited ONE link to a study, itself. Everything has been you making your own assertions. This conversation is really getting a bit silly, now. I've given lots of ideas of places for people to look and verify what I've said and all of my links work, so people can find them easily.

[Tarzanman]

Originally Posted by chuckshere

You haven't cited ONE link to a study, itself. Everything has been you making your own assertions. This conversation is really getting a bit silly, now. I've given lots of ideas of places for people to look and verify what I've said and all of my links work, so people can find them easily.

Uh, that's not exactly true. I've linked to the wikipedia article on the demographics of Atlanta and then linked 3 or 4 times to the racial dot project, which is the study (census data, actually) that all of the papers you have linked to are using.

I haven't looked for any papers to support my statement because I do not need to..... all the data that your guys are using is right there at the racial dot project, in front of your face, and it is even color coded.

Simply put, I don't need a grad student from Brown University to explain to me that the south and east sides of the Atlanta metro area is all green, and that the other areas that do not abut major highways are almost all blue.

Then there is my own personal experience.

You are correct that this conversation has gotten silly, but only one of us is quoting studies that they clearly haven't read, making self-contradictory statements about the scientific process, and using their college degree to justify a personal opinion based on little or no first-hand experience.

[chuckshere]

Originally Posted by Tarzanman

Uh, that's not exactly true. I've linked to the wikipedia article on the demographics of Atlanta and then linked 3 or 4 times to the racial dot project, which is the study (census data, actually) that all of the papers you have linked to are using.

I haven't looked for any papers to support my statement because I do not need to..... all the data that your guys are using is right there at the racial dot project, in front of your face, and it is even color coded.

Simply put, I don't need a grad student from Brown University to explain to me that the south and east sides of the Atlanta metro area is all green, and that the other areas that do not abut major highways are almost all blue.

Then there is my own personal experience.

You are correct that this conversation has gotten silly, but only one of us is quoting studies that they clearly haven't read, making self-contradictory statements about the scientific process, and using their college degree to justify a personal opinion based on little or no first-hand experience.

Wordiness doesn't make what you are saying factual. And when you try and demean a published study with the grad student reference, you really are reaching.